Updated Abortion Thread

[Lights]

Alright, since the last thread died (2 months ago?), I've had more debates on the subject at other forums. And, by and large, most pro-"choice" arguments are the weak ones we saw in the last thread (Woman's right to her body, Fetus not alive (Weak, except perhaps unless soley speaking of the first weeks), etc), but there have been a couple ideas popped up that made me think.

[And note this thread might only be worth staying open for a page or two. Most every argument has already been addressed here and I am not wanting to dive back in that. So perhaps after the discussion ends, it can be merged with the other.. ? Meh.]



The first point is the distinction between "human" and "person". This is similar to an argument from before about laws defending 'the mind.' Me and Undead Cheese have already discussed this some and came to somewhat of a conclusion, but I'de still like to throw it out there so everyone else can see and weigh in on it. It basically goes something like this:

While a fetus and person both are members of the homo sapiens sapiens classification - meaning they are both human, one of them is an accepted member of society, and one is not. One has unalienable rights, the other does not. One has an inner-self, the other does not. Is there a fundamental difference between a chicken and an egg? Yes, at some point in time, the egg will hatch into a chicken. The young chicken contained within the egg shares the same genetics that a live chicken outside of the egg has. Would you feel more remorse killing a live chick, or smashing an egg? Personally, I would feel more remorse killing the live chick. By Pro-Life reasoning, remorse should be distrubuted equally amongst the egg and chicken.

A person is an accepted member of society, one who is bound and covered by its laws. A fetus is not cosidered a person, it has no sense of self and not accepted by society, and should not be covered by laws.

Now, I'll admit this gave me a little trouble at first, but then I came to the conclusion that not only should the laws of humans protect all humans, but that a fetus must be accepted as a member of society, in the sense that it is a human as we are all humans. Personality or sense of self never come into the equation. These are relative, subjective things that have no basis for our laws.


The second point was for cases of rape. It is the normal, passing point when pro-life advocates give their position. "I am against abortion.. except in cases of rape or in the extreme question of the life of the mother..." But wait, why in cases of rape is abortion allowed? I have heard that it is because the woman 'didn't choose' to have sex. Fair enough, but does that diminish the value or right to live of the fetus inside her. Does it make it any less human? Why, though rape is against the law, does that mean the fetus is somehow devoid of the rights it normally has; what has it done wrong?

This is touchy. I do not think that it does diminish the right to live, and the fetus should live. But if the mother has no desires for a child, can we punish her to suffer 9 months pregnancy? If you say yes, then you will be met will all kinds of woman's rights groups and all kinds of "unjustice" claims. But if you say no, you will completely demean the value of an unborns life - making it seem somehow less important.

So with this choice, I must say that the abortion should still be illegal. It is unfortunate, yes, a tragedy, but the right to life of the unborn is still there. 9 months pregnancy is a long time, to be sure, but then with the raping, couldn't it just have easily been the mother dead or permanently disabled? That's a harsh way of looking at it, and I doubt it would convince anyone, but the right to life still stands, however cold it may seem to the equally innocent mother.

*Not that for the second part, the 'extreme question of the life of the mother' is covered in the sense that the abortion would be self-defense, and legal under law. Thank you, Undead Cheese. ;o


There were some other points, but this is already a huge post and I have things to do. And if anyone else has encountered new and stronger arguments, please share them.

And Lizardbreath isn't allowed in here.

[Jimbo]

I dont know.. The whole statement of "The fetus has rights too" makes me laugh...I mean Yes,it can turn into a human,but it does not have rights...Why dont we go let it have a gun,speak its mind,and vote.

Yeah,what i was basicly saying is.. if somone wants to have an abortion,go ahead.

[Snagg]

lol Vote. Where'd you get that from. Same reason why people under 18 aren't allowed to vote? Not educated?

Abortion is ridiculously selfish. I don't see how one can sleep at night after having an abortion. That person did something wrong, but they're not going to take the responsibility, instead, they'll just remove the baby. I think every religion in the world is against abortion.

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Snagg

lol Vote. Where'd you get that from. Same reason why people under 18 aren't allowed to vote? Not educated?

Abortion is ridiculously selfish. I don't see how one can sleep at night after having an abortion. That person did something wrong, but they're not going to take the responsibility, instead, they'll just remove the baby. I think every religion in the world is against abortion.

lol, i was stating the fact that fetuses dont have rights. Like the right to vote

[Venice_native]

Originally Posted by Jim Morrison

lol, i was stating the fact that fetuses dont have rights. Like the right to vote

Neither do teenagers. Teenagers don't have full legal rights until they are 18. Should will kill them too if their parents so desire?

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Venice_native

Neither do teenagers. Teenagers don't have full legal rights until they are 18. Should will kill them too if their parents so disire?

I never said i agreed with abortion,i just said when people say that a fetus has rights it makes me laugh.

And im not sure if i agree with abortion or not so yeah.

[Lights]

Can we keep to relevant comments. >_>

I mean Yes,it can turn into a human,but it does not have rights

No, it is generally accepted by everyone that a fetus is in fact a human being (genetically speaking). The debate is if it is 'alive' or if it is a 'person.'

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Lights

Can we keep to relevant comments. >_>



No, it is generally accepted by everyone that a fetus is in fact a human being (genetically speaking). The debate is if it is 'alive' or if it is a 'person.'

Well,a fetus is alive,but not a person.In my opinion its not a person due to the fact that it lives inside its mother,and is not actually in the "outside world" yet.

[Laharl]

Voting, to my understanding is a privaledge. One most people don't deserve.

Personally, I couldn't care about a fetus. It's beyond my level of understanding of the world as to why people are protecting it. If a woman wants an abortion enough she'll do anything necessary. Even risking her own health to do so. Why not let her do it at a clinic? Oh, wait. I remember now. Because the little thoughtless fetus will be destroyed. Seriously folks, move on. It hasn't the capacity to know that it even exists! Let alone miss it's existance!

Also, don't compare killing a teenager to killing a fetus. The teenager is capable of coherent thought (Which, according to my world view is when life begins). The fetus? Nah. Not coherent enough. Not even close.

Next up, fetus are parasites. They feed off the mother (The "host") but provide no benefits in return. Just a thought.

That's all for now, folks.

[bloodshed]

Hmm... They keep up the human population, love for their mother, and in some cases a thing that will help the entire world. Just because it isn't capable of thought doesn't mean it deserves to die.

People that support abortion should die. Literally because they support abortion and killing unborn fetuses. Maybe their mom should have aborted them, that is just my opinion.

[Snagg]

People are not capable of coherent thought until they are able to speak. This means that young babies can be killed too just because they don't have rights?

[Zerglite]

Babies are just parisites, kill em all.

no, seriously.

Who gives a shit, unless its not your child, stay out of other peoples buisiness.

If there wasn't legal abortion, there would still be abortions, theres no denying what some will go to to not have a child.

Some people just dont want kids.




in the end, i could care less

[Snagg]

Are they going to legalize murdering any family member then? Because we shouldn't give a shit because that person isn't related to us?

Why don't we legalize murder as long as you're related to the person. You'll still have murder if you illegalize it... so what's the point.

Some people just don't like others.

In the end, we shouldn't care?

[Octopor]

Until someone can prove that fetuses can think and feel, I don't really give a damn.

[Lights]

Originally Posted by §tar§oft

Until someone can prove that fetuses can think and feel, I don't really give a damn.

*Click to see the nonthinking and feeling fetus which shouldn't be considered human*


So your requirement to have the rights of life is the ability to "think" (And on what level of thought, I must ask) and "feel"? That's stupid.


But, anyway, apparently this thread has failed. Apparently I am the only one to have actually encountered any new arguments. Everything that has been said thus far has been beaten to the ground thoroughly. Fat-Homo came close, but his argument still shrinks down to "a fetus can't think" and "it wouldn't miss its existence." (An incredibly stupid thought process anyway, as how would anyone miss their existence once you've been killed? You're dead. That can't be a basis to limit towards unborns, as by that rationing, it doesn't matter if we killed anyone since they cannot miss themselves.)

I had hopes Tipsy or someone would come and add their insights, but apparently Tipsy is dead.

[Laharl]

I still stand by, and defend my world view of life starting at coherent thought. Most people start to "live" at the age of eight. Many people never do. Sad, but true.

I've never understood the basic premise of defending the "life" (But they are not alive, merely leeching directly off the host ["mother"]) of a unborn fetus. Some (many of my friends to be exact) see pregnancy as a STD (or whatever you call them these days) and abortions as the "cure".

As for the murder of children. Most children are capable of understanding the concept that if you stab them, they will be hurt. They would naturally, try to avoid that. The fetus? Cannot understand that it's gonna get destroyed (not killed, it's not alive), and will put up no defense. Not even a feeble one.

Physically handicapped people WILL try to defend themselves, verbally if they can't physically. Mentally disabled people (Well, most) will do the same. In other words? Alive. Can't kill 'em.

[N[U]TS]

Originally Posted by Lights

No, it is generally accepted by everyone that a fetus is in fact a human being (genetically speaking). The debate is if it is 'alive' or if it is a 'person.'

I consider it to be alive when the heart begins to beat(vital organs are formed at week 11). just from seeing pics outside abortion clinics and how they dispose of a baby that is fairly developed just leaves you saying "that little guy could have been somthing special".

I personally know a gurl who thought of it but she made the choice of going through the whole thing. Gave birth to a healthy baby boy. Unfortunately she had to put him up for adoption since she is a single mom trying to go to college.

Thats another point, what about spouses that can not have a child of their own? how are they able to enjoy the experience of raising a child? They could provide for the children for what their mothers couldnt at that point and time.

[Tipsy]

It is admirable to bring up this topic, but unfortunately here in the United States it will have very little impact. I posted this in the old abortion thread, but back from Roe vs Wade Supreme Court Justice Blackmun wrote that, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

It is quite obvious, whether looking generally at our society, or simply at this thread, that 'medicine, philosophy, and theology' have most definitely not arrived at a consensus and because of that, this argument does have very little effect on the overall issue, even though it is arguably the most important aspect of it.

As for my view on the actual issue, I do believe that whether or not a fetus is a 'person', it must be recognized as one by the government. As pointed out by Lights, a fetus is a human. Taking this one step further, it is illegal in most democratic countries in the world to discriminate on 1) Age and 2) Physical Attributes.

As for the rights a fetus has, there are many rights that can be regulated, the two mentioned here being voting and gun control. However, the one right every single human being has is the right to life - an inalienable right. As long as the fetus is under the jurisdiction of the United States then the United States has a duty to defend the fetus from the removal of its' inalienable right.

Originally Posted by Lights

I had hopes Tipsy or someone would come and add their insights, but apparently Tipsy is dead.

School has nearly killed my ability to write long posts on weekdays.

[Snagg]

What about a physically handicapped guy who cannot speak? He can't defend himself physically nor verbally. Therefore it is OK to kill? No. Why? Because it is alive.

A fetus is a human who is temporarily physically and verbally handicapped. Justifying to kill a fetus is just like justifying to kill physically handicapped people who cannot speak and people who are in a coma.

Why is it that you aren't allowed to kill people in a coma... they aren't really living, their heart is beating but that's it.

[Laharl]

Sign language counts as verbal, Snagg. And he is, and was, capable of coherent thought. Big difference.

Please prove to me that fetus are capable of thought.

The link posted above is highly inaccurate. A less than eight week old fetus looks like like this.this.

People who think otherwise really must study biology better.

Click here.

Siting sources.